Moral Philosophers concern themselves with Right and Wrong. It's not good enough to state that A is wrong, without first explaining why A is wrong, and for a person who calls themselves a philosopher this explanation has to divorce itself from the pull of emotions, find a home in reason, in logic, or in an abstract that can be shared. More often the ability to share abstract solutions depends upon a state of mind that accepts the existence and relevance of reason and this requires a mind to get far away from the tangles of passion where it might exist as a sort of board game played within a set of rules. One of the consequences is that Moral Philosophers like most Philosophers can only really talk to each other.
Call it an elitism if you like, but more important is the contribution of any
elite to the whole mass of us. One of the things about that contribution is the
extent to which the whole mass of us trust it. Ideally of course the rest of us
would understand the means by which the conclusion was achieved, we'd be able to
follow the arguments, have our chance to dispute them instead of relying upon
the flickering light of trust. Generally though the whole mass of us has no idea
how the conclusions were achieved, but give us power and soon enough we'll make
our own mistakes, lessons that will need re-learning, lessons that might even
produce different conclusions. Whether anything is reasonably right or wrong,
however, will always remain in limbo. And you're probably right there's a hot
poker in hell for me. Either way RIP Derek Parfit.